WATERGATE REORGANIZATION AND REFORM ACT - S. 495

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800120054-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 21, 2001
• Sequence Number: 54
• Publication Date: June 23, 1976
• Content Type: OPEN

UNci.Astimtved For EtleItgi 0:46/ 1 0/20 : CIA-RDP77E01444*FDENT1U054-4 El SECRET
USE ONLY
"7
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional) (Optional)
Executive Registry
6 - --?Alh 7 e r
FROM:
EXTENSION
NO.
DATE
23 June 1976 25X1
Legislative Counsel
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
1.
Director
You might be interested in
reading remarks made by Senator
Kennedy yesterday when he submitted
certain amendments to the Watergate
Reorganization and Reform Act.
One of Senator Kennedy's amendments
2.
S)
I 4 d )
would include the Idrector of CIA
within that category of federal
4.
executives subject to an "automatic
triggeringme anism" providinjor
the establishment of a special
5.
prosecutor.
STATI NTL
-
6.
25X1
7.
Legislative Counsel
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
FORM 610 USEDF:tIEOVa US
SECRET le CONFIDENTIAL n INTERNAL
3-62
Approve or Release 20/10/20: CIA-RDP77M6014AM01200
-4
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800120054-4
S 10124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
energy crisis was perceived. But regard-
less of the energy crisis, the deduction is
questionable because it shifts what is
essentially a user charge on those wh
use the Nation's highways to the tax-
payers as a whole, regardless of whethe
or how much they drive. The Federa
Government in effect provides backdoor
financing for State and local highway
bills, and shifts the cost of doing so from
the highest to the lowest income tax-
payers. Moreover, miles driven for tax
return purposes are such rough estimates
that they probably exceed by far the
number of miles actually driven on the
Nation's highways.
If the deduction was questionable when
created, it is indefensible now. The
seemingly inexhaustible energy supplies
of the sixties have given way to the
reality of permanent shortage. Reten-
tion of a subsidy which contradicts that
reality can no longer be tolerated.
The Finance Committee views this as
a tax simplification issue. It recommends
a $50 floor under the deduction as a
means of. discouraging taxpayers from
itemizing their returns in order to take
advantage of the deduction. This would
mean that if a taxpayer's State and local
gasoline taxes did not -exceed $50,
he would get no deduction at all.
Worthy as the tax simplification goal is,
this proposal flies in the face of the
Nation's energy crisis. It takes the deduc-
tion away from those who consume the
smallest quantities of gasoline and re-
tains it for those who consume the
largest.
I support the goal of tax simplification,
but a solution which at best ignores?
and at worst exacerbates?a national
problem of extreme urgency cannot be
countenanced. We are on a collision
course with depletive energy supplies, and
unless we bend every effort to conserve,
we are doomed to the control of those
who control the supplies.
The two goals?tax simplification and
energy conservation?are not mutually
exclusive. Both can be achieved by the
complete elimination of this counter-
productive deduction. An incentive to
itemize would be replaced with an in-
centive to conserve.
For the last few days we h
debating the need to generate
mates that repeal of the deduction would
reduce gasoline consumption by 250 gal-
lons, or 16,300 barrels of oil per day, in
o 1977 alone.
If there ever was a time when the
r deduction for State and local gasoline
1 taxes for nonbusiness use could be de-
fended, it cannot be defended today. Re-
tention of hundreds of millions in tax
subsidies for gasoline use by the wealthy
bespeaks a fundamental failure to appre-
ciate the depths of the Nation's energy
crisis. Increasing dependence on foreign
oil and accelerating consumption of a
rapidly depleting resource insure future
crises of unmanageable proportions un-
less we change direction. Removal of the
subsidy for gasoline consumption would
accomplish a fundamental reform in the
tax laws, add substantially to the gen-
eral revenues, increase the fairness of
the tax system, and make a modest step
In the direction of a rational energy
policy.
ave been
an
addi-
tional $1 billion in tax reform revenues.
Adoption of this amendment would
move us more than a third of the way
toward that goal in fiscal 1977 and al-
most two-thirds of the way toward that
goal by 1981. The estimated revenue gain
from complete repeal of the deduction is
$600 million in fiscal 1977, rising to $910
million in 1981. By contrast, the Finance
Committee's $50 floor proposal would in-
crease revenues by only $285 million in
[heal 1977 and rise to only $343 million
in 1981. So this proposal would add $315
million to the Finance Committee's
measure in 1977 and almost $560 million
by 1981.
This reform would not only make a
major contribution to revenue; it would
also make a major contribution to con-
servation. Using elasticity of demand
estimates prepared by Data Resources
Inc., an economics consulting and fore-
casting firm, the Budget Committee esti-
PUBLIC WORKS FOR WATER AND
POWER DEVELOPMENT AND EN-
ERGY RESEARCH APPROPRIATION'
ACT, 1977?H.R. 14236
AMENDMENT NO. 1912
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on
the table.)
Mr. GLENN (for himself and Mr. Do-
NIENICI) submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed by them jointly
to the bill (H.R. 14236) making appro-
priations for public works for water and
power development and energy research,
including the Corps of Engineers?Civil,
the Bureau of Reclamation, power agen-
cies of the Department of the Interior,
the Appalachian regional development
programs, the Federal Power Commis-
sion, the'Tennes,See Valley Authority, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the En-
ergy Research and Development Admin-
istration, and related independent agen-
'cies and commissions for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1977, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 1913
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on
the table.)
Mr. BAKER submitted an amendment
Intended to be proposed by him to the
bill (H.R. 14236) , supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 1930
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on
the table.)
Mr. GARY HART submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill (H.R. 14236), supra.
WATERGATE REORGANIZATION
AND ReeFORM ACT?S. 495
AMENDMENTS NOS. 1926 THROUGH 1929
(Or be printed and to lie on
r. President, S. 495,
ganization and Re-
form c , is now awaiting action by the
Senate. This bill would bring about im-
portant "reiorms concerning ho% eeir
Liovernment tackles the problem o cor-
liPt public official The bill wo
aeo a statt_iseeeeyeeesechanism for .7-a-iFirt-
meiWporary special prosereertr
June 22, 1976
in future situations involving criminal
allegations against very high-level Fed- 1
eraf officials and in situations wnere-tneres.
otwee.ls_l be..eeet conflict of eese between
themnt or the Attorney General
on the one -nailiezbui.a.sAasth- te ? ..,
investigations on the other. S. 495 would
also establish a new Division of Govern-
ment Crimes within the Department of
Justice. This new division would be
headed by an Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral, appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate. Es-
tablishing a high-level unit to ferret out
official corruption is long overdue and
would help signal to the American people
the seriousness with which we view vio-
lations of the public trust.
I support S. 495, Mr. President, and
urge floor action on this bill as soon as
possible. But,? ? e are iireye ,m
that can be made o ptt?t-F-7ceW
Thererere, I on stminitting at
is four amendments that I will
offer when S. 495 comes before the full
Senate.
The first amendment I propose deals
with powers and responsibilities of a tem-
porary special prosecutor.
S. 495, as drafted, does not spell out
the powers of the special prosecutor. My
first amendment is intended to delineate
the appropriate powers and thus guar-
antee the functional independence of the
special prosecutor. These powers are very
similar to those spelled out in the char-
ters under which Special Prosecutor
Archibald Cox and his successors derived
their authority. They are also quite sim-
ilar to the powers delineated in both of
the so-called "Independent Special Pros-
ecutor Acts of 1973." In fact, on the ques-
tion of what independent powers and
authority a special prosecutor should
have, there was substantial Judiciary
Committee agreement in 1973 even
though the committee split on the ques-
tion of whether the executive or the ju-
diciary should appoint the Special Pros-
ecutor.
These powers include the power to liti-
gate, conduct grand jury proceedings,
frame and sign indictments, contest as-
sertions of privilege, appeal cases, seek
immunity for witnesses and other powers
a prosecutor might need to carry out his
duties.
The exercise of these powers, of
course, would be limited to those mat-
ters within the jurisdiction of the spe-
cial prosecutor. Under the bill, the
jurisdiction, in turn, is to be delineated
by the Attorney General in most in-
stances, or by the court. Also, the At-
torney General has the power to remove
a special prosecutor for extraordinary in-
proprieties.
As we learned from the Watergate sit-
uation, a thorough and competent in-
vestigation can be thwarted unless the
prosecutor can be insulated from undue
interference. Also, the public itself may
have little confidence in the integrity
and independence of an investigation
that is not clearly independent from
those under investigation. The Prosecu-
tor's independence should be statutorily
determined, as would be the case under
my amendment.
In addition, S. 495 as written does not
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800120054-4
e
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800120054-4
CONGRESSI( NAL RECORD ?SENAT
NATE RESOLUTION 477?SUI3MIS-
ION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHOR"-
1 NG ADDITIONAL PRINTING
Re rrea to the Committee on Rules
nd Adlenriistration.)
Mr. CAL RCH. submitted the lollowing
t:,solutiona
a ate Cri
,bere be printed for the
.;0 or t e peripi committee on Aging one
ihousand. o hury.ireci and twelve additional
epics of repdilk i,ur the Senate entitled
1/evelritinie:11s iu ANng: 1975 and January-
Slay 14`,, Pan OT Le
NIENL, :vIEN '1:6 6 tj WITTED FOR
rs'; ATMs:: OAS ACT AVINNDMENTS
!9 3422\
11309
U. oe printed and Rt. lie on
the table.,
Mr, BO MPE.R6. Mr. President, am
today sobmitting for printing an ame
went to 6. a422 tnat would reduce fro,
di years to a the period during which the
:use of lie/0..11'0,i gas as boiler fuel would
be phased 4mt.
There widespread agreement that
tile Use p natUrai gas as boner fuel?
WIIR:tl ace:owned for at least one-third
of gas consumption in 1975?is wasteful
thU unnecessary. And yet there is equally
widespread agreement that the phasing
out of boner-luel use cannot proceed too
rapidly. es we win aeleat our own pur-
a)ses, Oar goal must be a conversion
in gas )..) coal. II conversion is required
aro' rapidly, the eesult could be a gen-
eral conversion now gas to oil. The Na-
t would gain utIle front such a con-
version, l.ecause oath fuels are scarce,
ahd badie needed elsewhere. Coal. on
the other band. is plentiful, and offers
our best Looe for a smooth transition to
the new ectergy eources of tile a1st cen-
tury.
The Commerce., Committee, in an effort
to strike a barance between the need to
{.:onserve i'as and the need to stimulate
the use co. coal. bats provided for a 10-
ye5Lr traosition period. 'Inc use of gas as
boiler tuee by electric utilities and other
industriee win be permitted after May
'la, 1986, in only a lew specific situations.
But I bisaave that the power companies
Slid the ither big users can be weaned
from then dependence on gas as a boiler
fuel a Male more rapidly, without jeop-
ardizing till' ultimate goals. Accordingly,
1 aro tOday ofierilig an amendment to
reduce tile transition period from 10
years to 4'. According to estimates pro-
vided by the Library of Congress and the
1,0ertierai Power Commission, 7 years
ehoulci be adequate time for conversion
by the great majority of boiler fuel users.
Under the bill as reported, the FPC
the ',.tithority to extend the conver-
sion peried by la months for users who
cannot convert to other fuels by the
deadline, Under my amendment, in rec-
ognition of a tigher deadline, the FPC
would be able to extend the conversion
Period by 18 months. This would enable
virtually all boiler-fuel users to convert
to coal or other fuels within 81/2 years.
It is pos.s.bie, of course, that a few boiler-
fuel users a ould not be able, oespite Weir
best efforts, to end their use of natural
gas before the deadline. If that is the
case. the ca cision to extend the conver-
sion period beyond 8.',, years should be
made by Ce ogress?and 1 believe that an
extension arould be granted only when
the econore is and environmental conse-
quences or a shutdown tin eaten to be
exceptional iy severe.
Needless to say, when we speak of the
boiler-fuel Ise of natural gast what first
comes to hind Is electric power genera-
tion. In lit 15, 15 percent 01 ail toe gas
consumed in this country was useci roe
electric waver generation; ocaer indus-
trial boiler-fuel use accounted foe at
I sast 20 percent. A 7-year cie la ersion pe-
riod will a it present maitre obstacles to
most industrial users; the General Ai --
counting Office, in a report seieased last
January, c -timated that most industrial
users could convert to other lueis in 2 to
5 years. 7 ae conversion el aowerplants
will be a le, ager and costlier process, and
will, in at east a lew eases require the
complete replacement: co individual
lants.
The use of gas as a boiler nice is most
whiespreac in my own regior; , two-thirds
of
\p t e 3 Tef used for electrie power gen-
erati in 1975 was used in just four
StatesNTe'tas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and
Arkansa\The use of gas for power gen-
eration h, ,, been declining-an fell from
3.6 Tcf in 1,973 to 3 Tcf in 1975--but it
has not i, An falling rapidly enough.
Market fetceN, are already stiraulating a
switch from s to coal-- the average
price of ass, na onwide, 1!--3 now equiva-
lent to the avera price al: coal?and a
major coot ersion f m gas to coal is like-
ly to take ,ilace dun i the next 10 yam's,
with or wahout a 10- ear deadline. A 7-
year death ii.e will spee p this inevitable
change. 13, sharply cur ling the use of
gas as boeer fuel, we can\free as much
as one-third of our current \consumption
for more roductive purpose 4t we should
do all that: we can to hasten th'et change.
Mr. Pia ident, I ask marina-Am con-
sent that , he text of my aineadkent be
printed in the RECORD. \
There bang no objection the aniend-
ment was ordered to be printed in tie
RECORD, aos follows:
.111TENDMENT NO. I50'
On page ll, line 1, change -10- to
On page 21. line 4. change ":2" to "18".
On pay 21, line 8, chan!;.0. -19?30- to
"1983".
TAX RLFORM ACT OF 1976?HR
10612
.2ILEN31ViENT NO. ii
Orderel to be printed :and to lie on
the table
Mr. Bra,LMON submittea an amend-
ment intended to be propoced by him to
the bill k 'IR. 10612) to amend the tax
laws of tit United States.
INTENDMENT NO.
Ordertd to be printeo and to lie on
the table
Mr. a ATHAWAY s uonutted an
ameniameot intended to be proposed to
committet amendment No. 4 to the bill
(H.R. 106 ;2) , supra.
S 10123
,M..ENDMEN1S NOS. a414 tinlOOtSO
'Ordered to be printed and to lie on
U table.)
Mr. HATHAWAY submitted 1.(",P
am lendments intended to be proposer. b32
h: a to the bill (H.R. 10612), supra
tbIENDNIEIST NO. 1924
Ordered to be printed and to Lk 01
ti table.)
Vir. STEVENSON. Mr. President, 1 ant
at }mating for printing an amend:men;
tc. H.R. 10612 to repeal the deduction for
S, ate and local taxes on gasoline use
ft nonbusiness purposes. This deduction
? ,ts the Treasury hundreds of millions
o. dollars a year. It subsidizes the con-
? .nption 3f gasoline at a time when de-
o odence on foreign oil is growing. I,
p ovides the bulk of its benefits to those
im the highest, income brackets. It shit-a-
t] cost of highway use from those wh,
d we to the taxpayers as a whole it iin-
n cessarily complicates tax returns anti
e courages taxpayers to cheat. And n
U es completely in the face of a notional
c inmittent to energy conservation.
The deduction for State and local limi-
t siness gasoline taxes cost the 'fleas-
u y $820 million in 1975. Projection: are
t, at it volt rise to over $900 million in
1 al. This represents almost a billion
ci ,fiars in subsidies for the consumption
o gasoline when imports of foreign on
a e some 4 percent above what they wear
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800120054-4
June 22, 1976
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
explicitly authorize the Special Prosecu-
tor to report to Congress or authorize
him to prepare reports for the public.
The power to report publicly is a useful
power -to help insure independence, and
the duty to report to Congress helps
force the Special Prosecutor to focus on
legislative solutions to the problems he
dealt with. The Watergate Special Prose-
cution Farce final report, for example,
contains several recommendations that
were incorporated into this bill. This
amendment would also authorize the
submission of such reports and would re-
quire the Special Prosecutor to report to
the Attorney General upon completion
of his duties.
The next amendment I propose would
improve the bill's treatment of the ques-
tion of when a special prosecutor should
be appointed.
pection 594(c) (2) lists those individ-
uals with respect to whom a criminal in-
Wstrgation will automatically trigger the
appomtment oi a temporary snecial
prosecutor Unless the criminal allega-
tions against this class of individuals are
certified by the Attorney General to be
frivolous, then there is no legal choice
under the bill but to appoint a specal
prosecutor. Accordingly, this class of in-
dividuals should be carefully and pre-
cisely defined. We should be neither over-
inclusive, nor underinclusive. This
amendment is intended to limit the num-
ber of individuals statutorily defined in
this special class.
As presently drafted, S. 495 would
automatically require the appointment
of a special prosecutor in all criminal in-
vestigations involving any individual
working in the Executive Office of the
President who is comnensated at a rate
equivalent to or greater than level V of
the Executive Schedule. As a practical
matter, this class would include 184 in-
dividuals, quite a large number of Gov-
ernment officials. Included would be such
positions as numerous trade representa-
tives and even professional budget
analysts, certainly not the type of offices
which we should say as a matter of law
requires in all cases a special prosecutor.
Thus, this amendment would change
the automatic triggering level from level
V to level IV and above. As a practical
matter, this would comprise only 52 in-
dividuals in the White House and thus be
limited to those who are closest to the
Chief Executive and thus most likely to
present a conflict-of-interest situation.
Of course, criminal investigations of
Government officials who are not part
of this class may still require the ap-
pointment of a special prosecutor de-
pending on the circumstances that in-
dividual's relationship to the President
or the Attorney General. These case-by-
case situations are provided for in section
594(c) (1) which establishes standards
for the Attorney General and the court
to determine whether or not there is a
conflict of interest that would require
the appointment of a special prosecutor.
Also, as the bill is presently drafted,
the automatic appointments of a spe-
cial prosecutor will occur not only for
extremely high-level Government offi-
cials?President, Vice President, Cabinet
officers, high-level White House assist-
ants, et cetera?but also for individuals
who formerly occupied any of those high-
level positions during the previous 4
years. The intent of this provision as
drafted is to reach situations where the
target of an investigation resigns or has
already left office, but where neither one
of those reasons should militate against
,pointing a special prosecutor.
In defining this special class of in-
dividuals, we should be as precise as
possible in order to reach the conflict of
interest situations that will arise, but
also to avoid the needlessness appoint-
ment of a special prosecutor in other
situations. As currently drafted, a cur-
rent President's former chief White
House assistant, for example, might es-
cape the rigorous and impartial investi-
gation by a special prosecutor simply be-
cause he no longer holds that position.
On the other hand, the investigation of
a former White House assistant to a de-
feated Republican President could, for
example, trigger the appointment of a
special prosecutor even though the cur-
rent President and Attorney General are
part of a Democratic administration.
There are numerous instances like these
which most of us would agree would not
automatically require a special prosecu-
tor, but which S. 495 would include in the
triggering device.
The cases to which we should limit the
automatic appointment of a special pros-
ecutor are those involving very high-
level former Government officials, and
conflicts of interest with the investigat-
ing administration. Thus, we should con-
dition the automatic appointment not
solely on the basis of the amount of time
the former official has been out of of-
fice, but more importantly on whether
the former official served in the same
Presidential administration as the one
which would conduct the prosecution. It
is the latter standard that better meas-
ures true conflict-of-interest situations.
My amendment would incorporate the
more precise standard. It would also
limit the automatic appointment mech-
anism to crimes related to the former
officials' governmental activities.
As I mentioned, the automatic 1ringer-
10 mecnnms-rn m section 594(el2Lana.
lirieates a limited class of governing/11,W
criminial
re-
iilres the appointment of a special nre,s-
ecitor. Thes ?h-
-17'67fileift7?Vice President,
the Federal Bureau orInvestfggLtion. a,11
Cabinet members, and a limited number
ofhigh-level White House assistaris,M
amendmentwould include the irec r
'brme CIA in this class of offic . Like
abinet members annigh-level White
House assistants, the CIA Director func-
tions within a class of officials considered
? !" I '1,,D - ui. Tfaditionally, he
as reported ? irect y and frequently to
the President on matters of the utmost
sensitivity, secrecy, and importance. Un-
like even the Cabinet departments, the
CIA submits itself to relatively little in-
teragency coordination and review be-
fore taking action. Instead, the CIA
through its Director can and does act
virtually without executive branch con-
S 10125
straints, except those established by the
President. History and commonsense ,ell
us that the CIA Dircetor occupies a sloe-
;pial position vis-a-vis the President and
thould not be treated differently than
abinet members for purposes of this
ill. Pul confidence jnetbgeiniag.retty.of
itheic-rn?Wocess. as 'ell as the psag-
gss itself, will be better serv ? ?
tions?ET-ffiTigt=17K-Uifector of criminal
y?.7rongc.......ionve are!.' aurayeajayea,n
teinaliapeod
e prose -
V-
The next amendment would tighten
certain language of the bill that triggers
reporting requirements on the part of the
Attorney General and Government em-
ployees.
The bill as drafted requires the At-
torney General to file memorandums
with the court whenever he receives "in-
formation, allegations, or evidence" con-
cerning criminal wrongdoing if his par-
ticipation in the investigation may con-
stitute a conflict of interest. These filing
requirements are an integral part of the
process of deciding v hether to appoint a
special prosecutor. Although these filing
requirements are neither burdensome
nor oppressive, the Justice Department
expressed some questions as to how these
requirements would be interpreted and
operate in practice. A literal reading of
the requirements, as now drafted, might
impose an unnecessary burden on the
-Attorney General if he is the recipient of
numerous but totally unspecified and
general allegations concerning the activ-
ity of high-level Government officials.
For example, a disgruntled group of cit-
izens could simply transmit to the At-
torney General allegations such as ''the
President is a crook" or the Seerelary
takes graft."
A plausible reading of the bill as pres-
ently drafted would require the Attorney
General to file memorandums -concern-
ing allegations such as these. This
amendment is intended to tighten the
language so that allegations and infor-
mation must be of a specific nature in
order to trigger the requirement that
the Attorney General must file in court .
memorandums concerning the allega-
tions.
Moreover, section 592(c) requires all
Government employees to report to the
local U.S. attorney or the Attorney Gen-
eral "any information, allegation, or
complaint" concerning criminal wrong-
doing that would be within the jurisdic-
tion of the new Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral for Government crimes. As pointed
out, it may be too burdensome to im-
pose reporting requirements simply be-
cause a Government employee is the re-
cipient of totally unspecified and general
allegations regardless of the source.
Thus, this amendment would impose re-
porting rquirements only in those situa-
tions in which the information or allege -
tion is of a specific nature.
My final amendment deals with the
jurisdiction of the new division within
the Department of Justice that S. 495
provides for. Section 592(a) of the bill
establishes the jurisdiction of the new
Assistant Attorney General for Govern-
ment Crimes. That provision limits the
jurisdiction to criminal violations of Fed-
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800120054-4
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800120054-4
CON GF, F: SS I ON AL
t-ett.; law tttammitted by" most Govern-
tweet officials. As drafted, therefore, S.
495 tantid operate in such a way that the
diy; aon would have authority to investi-
te the Government official who receives
.ea.-Lne, but not the private party who
'ii' tired the bribe. This is neither an
eaative ;ler probably an intended as-
tete neat ot responsibilities within the
ortment of justice. The jurisdiction
hi cs oroadened to include criminal
Mg. Government officials..
al amendment would also as-
aew assistant Attorney Gen-
_ ternment Crime general su-
eeseonsibilities over Depart-
investigations of corrupt
a officials. In most investi-
s itoiraVIng State and local officials,
.ropriale U.S, attorney handles
.avestigation and prosecution,
ileac' of the Criminal Division
eaton possesses general super-
-a oravent, Since this bill creates an
Pt a division and Assistant Attor-
eaten deal exclusively with p0-
tinoases, it is appropriate
ter/ powers over such cases
.-'n from the Criminal Dial-
a Government Crime Divi-
Iingernent should better
etee t Federal prosecutor with
etee ea at-hortiful backup from Wash-
V. T.IS.12, as importantly, the
veiteeet firMies Division will be in
Ito exercise responsibil-
tew instances where the local
.s not proceeding properly
ti effitilict of interest with
,ffitaai under investigation.
ra,ble opinion from those
ci in the Department of
ionalty local prosecu-
;, officials by local Fed.-
I present situations that
rthicall would be better
e inside the particular 10-
eet, instances, the required
eiection should be in the
Crimes Dwi-
Ic
Vresirient, on be-
the Judiciary,1
it that a public hear-
.eduied for Tuesday.
5 am n room 2228,
:mice Hu Ming, on the
Ito, it Idaho, to be
for the ninth circuit,
sce , re rOred,
eerie to offer testimony
anis nomination, shall, not
hours prior to such hear-
., with the committee a
?eard and a statement of
,tatimony.
et eonaists of the Sen-
sas (Mr, MCCLELLAN') ;
from Nebraska (Mr,
myself as chairman,
VENT OF NOMINATION
tEARING
tiSS.. Mr. President, yesterday,
the nomination of Dr. Alan M.
12 FCORD ? SF \TATE
Toy, ace. of Maryland to he Deputy A
min( .trator of the National Aeronaut es
and 3pace Administration, was refer 'd
to t. e Committee on Aeronaattral aal
Spa, Sciences. Dr. Lovelace would
plac Dr. George M Low. who has
sier d.
B , -ause of the nroaa of other Sen re
busi ass and the pending reeess, t
core tittee has decided to move imn --
dial. v on Dr hovel ice's nominatt
The !fore, T announce that the heart ,a
on T. Lovelace's nomination will ta cc
plat. at 1030 a.m.. Friday June a5. 19 8,
in r orn 235 of the Re :sell Senate Oft ?e
Buil ing,
vone desiring to testify at the he. -
ing r to hie a statterent on this nor
nati n should contact, the con mlttee
CE OF RESCHEDULED HE. ARE' .".)
M ABOUR.EZK Mr Presideni h
to a? nounce for the information of 't .17
colic goes and interested public that t
Sabi anmittee on Inrii:tr Affairs has ?
ache tiled its oversiaht hearing on t a
land ,sane of the Our-eh :en Indian Tr ,e
of F rt Yuma, AriZ. for June 14 T -e
prey aisly scheduled ..Jh me 11 hearing vt
post med due to the husiness on t .e
Sent e floor on that day_
Ti. ? June 24 hea_er a, will Oe a cm' -
tinti .ion of the hearmg whath began ii
Mav a At that time I arinmirced that a -
othe hearing would he 4ehedelecl in r
tier 1st the Secretat y of the inter e?
coil appear persona de and gore t
aiihr mmittee the brn,fir, of Ins remar is
whit . are so vital to this issue_
Ti solicommittee aill content, at 0
am. n room 3110 of ..te ekt'en sent a
OTAr Bulkiing
'TI schednieri 1".,11,,,,,,sos are'
50 0. The Honorabfa. ,ne-tinas
.e. Secretary of the Interior, accor,-
na.nal by the Hormel Ole Kent Frizz(
utak secretary, and tile Ilororable I
Ore, ,ry Austin, solicitor and
ond. Mr, Frits Pa own preside, t.
Qat- ean. 'Fu ibc. accent anied ny Mr.! -
1.11;1- former ore-orient it net
on, oimpson,
SUP, TITUTION OF' sE NATCR .1011
ib": 3N FOR SENATOR CHURCH .
A ONFEREE?H hI 2169
7.1.; JACKSON Mr t.'resid ni, I a k.
unat nous consent tr. t 'he CI, al- be a -
ed to appoint tele junior Senat
?
fecal Loirsiana (Mr 0 :INS ro 4 ) a, co -
fere. on H.R. 12169, e bill to cat-rid t e
t3I. Energy Admioistration, to I -
lilac- the senior Set 1,t )r frein Ida o
tt4tIr 7111TRCIL
T: aLD C Ci?M
,
Ica, it is SO entre,
-.1_...iiant"It)e; AL ti A N"?-S
CONIES, -aatT tee,"
; (1-; 1'
z LIS Mr eiesicer t, a ve y
native article ha,, tonearec, in t
rT, Fliar ts 'Issue of anne 26_ 19' ;
entir ed "Carter Comes Out of t..e
Clos I ask Uflar.irn' it eonsen% to a -
jw/.."74., , 9 7
tend rev remarks by printing that ar-
ticle ir, the RECORD;
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the Racona
as follows:
reetaaa Clcmas rrts fltoskir
Willi 'lie Democratic nomination tall out
Ft's ,Jirasp, Jimmy Carter has started to
come not of the closet. And contrary to all
the up-front advertising, he has done sf, in
the gaudy plumage of big-spending Wa,th-
ingt3ti liberalist/1.
Cci t- -a-coli,etivist --liberal is quite a
jwiteila from the image he tried to pro'ect
through;itt the primary season. His effort
teas been to prrtray himself as the. anti-
Wasaineton, an cantildste,
opposed to -federal centralization and bu-
reaucracy. His rhetoric has been conserva-
tive to ;moderate, and obviously aided him
.to First it or the nomination,
rhe t. a age Ci front has occurred in ste..irly
bliases--- in public statements and commit-
'cents that Carter has made along the Way,
md fin illy in a comprehensive statement
en the Lssues submitted by Carter to the
Democr?-; tic platforni-drafting subcommit-
tee, chaired by Gov. Michael Dukakis of
Affassacetusetts. In these statements Carter
. ?
eai mid his liberal credentials or. the table,
and frocfl a leftward standpoint they are
iinpresseM,
The r,r-oposals offered by Carter in rectmt
weeks b.ive embraced everything from ne.-
tional economic planning at one end of the
liberal spectrum to "decriminalization" of
marijuana on the other. He has come ,,-rut
for price controls in various guises, handgun
control, the Equal Rights Amendment, in-
treasfid :ederal spending on social pre;srarns?
pardon for 'Vietnam draft-dodger,-;,
eomoret ensive national health insurance
Carters stands on foreign policy i's. es are
of a sirmlar kidney, containing nothins!,
staniAve to displease the left and many .9ra)-
cafim in keeping with the liberal ideology,
there it, {milling in his recent statements
cie..ld not be embraced by Hr bert Hem-
olirey, litiiph Nader, Teddy Kennedy, ;:,r eren
;?.e.111-, Al. nig. Everything is in there, from
eressed regi;lation of bi!stness sad
stepped oip federal spending to ritual pi; g'S
'or nuel ,ar disarmament.
Moreo'fer, the platform-drafting sitbcom-
mittee g:ielf was controlled by Carter forces,
;Lietieed te/ Atlanta attorney Stuart Eisen:peat..
avie-tre bf Carter's impending focal-
, atit in; the pl atf crfn drafters obeclien fly
-finc-tutmci. the document to snit the cite' for
go,?'erninent liberalism on et 'or
in neuter, unintlammatory
:sng'uw" On roomy points, Indeed? the plat-
,f)rm. is slaibst a verbatim duplication of the
;Carter ;,:eiternefit submitted to the corn-
:mitt
Thus .;110; iDentocratio draft platfcrm,
'well as 'huitcr's own statements, odes; a
;Milling insight into his positions. 'Patting,
client together, we get the following ;teset-srlia
if Cart' i issues for the fall election
Support for the.fiumphrey-Hatiikins
emu:by:a:cot" planning bill, a scheme that
cost anywhere from $16 to $31 bill ,on
ifliitiulit . according to most estisriaLf-
-17114/Ugh ;advertised strietly as a "jobs' bill,
Stuniptuo,y-Hawittns would cre;ate mat:inn:try
" ? titigt" virtually every attleot,
t.ifitiottlic life. projecting 'n Out cal
?foals
ret tied to full employment, prod,r,eti,i,,
nrurc
C id i,t. hacking for this bill is exereeied
in a elle le, terse assertion: "Support for the
i Ito-L;iyinte,;, Outi tsr 1976." khe Mt:thine:
..tibssetmattee elaborates, "Of special im-
portance is the need for national economic
plan:ling capability. if we do not plan,
tint cotednue to react to crisis after crisis,
bur em. ,rnic performance will Pe forther
eroded."
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800120054-4